Bill to end Birthright Citizenship put forth. (status, amendment, constitution)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What you're saying is end this anchor baby BS which I agree with. The parents need to get in line behind everyone else and come into this country legally.
If the baby has one legal US citizen for a parent, then it's a citizen. Two illegal parents=illegal baby.
The depth and breadth of historical cluelessness necessary to allow a person to pretend that the dissents in Scott v. Sandford are "only dicta" is profound, almost beyond words. That is the equivalent of calling an alligator a lizard, of describing Albert Einstein as "smart," or of calling Nate Silver a "good guesser." The Dred Scott decision is not recognized as the single worst decision in all of American Jurisprudence just for fun. And the dissents are not merely the losing side of a court case.
Dissents are nothing more than dicta, so what that political conjecture overturned Dred Scott through the public and created the 13, 14, and 15th Amendments. It may be the single worst decision in all American jurisprudence ever, yet the dissent, dicta and all, was just that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
Do dissents create binding precedent? No. Are they often cited as "persuasive authority?" Absolutely. And in this case their persuasive authority was so powerful that they ultimately became an Amendment to the United States Constitution. They were the dissents that history has declared correct.
They were dissents that changed the course of history, nothing more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
But even that is not to the point here. We are not speaking of their power as "legal reasoning." They are not reasoning at all. They are objective statements of historical fact.
Prior to 1866 free blacks could be (and often were) citizens of the United States.
And yet you can't even give me the name of one documented Black Citizen, you can only give a name of one Freeman, Quock. Again, equating them to citizens is not making them citizens, freemen did not equate to citizen no matter how much you wish it to be, or how much Curtis assumed the same.
Lets add another name, James Forten, Sept 1766 - March 1842. Born a Freeman, not a citizen.
Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 01-22-2013 at 09:51 PM..
wow, the lengths that someone will go to stay willfully ignorant, when his own sources doesn't support his claims.
willfully ignorant? And yet you were the one calling me foolish when you failed to get your claim right. Your dog is no longer in the hunt, go back to being a spectator.
Yes you choose to not see what is in plain English for all of us. You ignore the very court rulings and law that says what he have been saying all along, quote mine, thinking that we won't catch you in your dishonesty, and then twist those findings to mean someting that it doesn't.
Willfully ignorant is tame compared to the drivel, twisting and outright dishonesty you're displaying.
Quote:
And yet you were the one calling me foolish when you failed to get your claim right. Your dog is no longer in the hunt, go back to being a spectator.
Yes you choose to not see what is in plain English for all of us. You ignore the very court rulings and law that says what he have been saying all along, quote mine, thinking that we won't catch you in your dishonesty, and then twist those findings to mean someting that it doesn't.
Willfully ignorant is tame compared to the drivel, twisting and outright dishonesty you're displaying.
Flounder, flounder little fish.
I'm sorry I don't fit into your little click.
How about explaining why Ludwig Hansding (1885) was denied BRC even though he was born here to include Richard Greisser (1885), and several others. How about George Weigand born in the US in 1850. Looks like simply being born on US soil isn't enough to confer citizenship on the child no matter the circumstance. How about Francois Heinrich under the statutes of 1802 and 1866 he was born (1850 on US soil) to temporary sojourners of Austrian descent, it was held he was born to parents "subject to a foreign power".
all before Wong Kim Ark, which pretty much destroys your argument
sorry that Wong Kim Ark sticks in your crawl, but those of us who live in reality, understand that the ruling applies to everyone across the board.
Do you understand why WKA retained his citizenship status in the US even after he left the US for China? Sorry you fail in understanding WKA case.
Your reality is just that, your reality. Please stay in your little bubble, the air isn't safe for you out here. Your "general acceptance" holds no value.
The names I pointed out also refute historinduds claim that all persons born on US soil, even prior to 1868 were born citizens.
Now I'll make another point, citizenship isn't really observed until the age of majority, 18 y.o. Prior to that age, if the family leaves the US for it's home nation after having been domiciled here, the child will take on the fathers citizenship. I strongly suggest you read the full book from 1891, I gave you the link to. Gray, in WKA, doesn't change any of the cases within the book, nor does it add to the cases of the book. Gray in fact points out exactly what the book discusses
Quote:
Wong Kim Ark, ever since his birth, has had but one residence, to-wit, in California, within the United States, and has there resided, claiming to be a citizen of the United States, and has never lost or changed that residence, or gained or acquired another residence, and neither he nor his parents acting for him ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, or did or committed any act or thing to exclude him [p653] therefrom. In 1890 (when he must have been about seventeen years of age), he departed for China on a temporary visit and with the intention of returning to the United States, and did return thereto by sea in the same year, and was permitted by the collector of customs to enter the United States upon the sole ground that he was a native-born citizen of the United States. After such return, he remained in the United States, claiming to be a citizen thereof, until 1894, when he (being about twenty-one years of age, but whether a little above or a little under that age does not appear) again departed for China on a temporary visit and with the intention of returning to the United States, and he did return thereto by sea in August, 1895, and applied to the collector of customs for permission to land, and was denied such permission upon the sole ground that he was not a citizen of the United States.
Had WKA gone with his parents with no intent to return to the US, he would have gained the citizenship of his father and been denied his US citizenship in 1890.
So please explain where my argument is destroyed by WKA.
Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 01-23-2013 at 08:35 AM..
I'm sorry I don't fit into your little click.
How about explaining why Ludwig Hansding (1885) was denied BRC even though he was born here to include Richard Greisser (1885), and several others. How about George Weigand born in the US in 1850. Looks like simply being born on US soil isn't enough to confer citizenship on the child no matter the circumstance. How about Francois Heinrich under the statutes of 1802 and 1866 he was born (1850 on US soil) to temporary sojourners of Austrian descent, it was held he was born to parents "subject to a foreign power".
I think that the individuals you cited were denied American passports that would have established them as Americans because they, in fact, were seeking to avoid conscription to the German army. After birth, they were all removed from the United States, and ended up living in Germany. They weren't seeking to come to the United States, they weren't seeking to fulfill any of the obligations of American citizenship, they were only seeking to get the United States to recognize them as citizens for the sole purpose of compelling Germany to recuse them from military service. The Secretary of State deemed that as they were not applying to come to the United States to live as citizens, but only seeking to renege on the obligations of their German citizenship, that granting them passports would demean the value and actual meaning of American citizenship.
I think that the individuals you cited were denied American passports that would have established them as Americans because they, in fact, were seeking to avoid conscription to the German army. After birth, they were all removed from the United States, and ended up living in Germany. They weren't seeking to come to the United States, they weren't seeking to fulfill any of the obligations of American citizenship, they were only seeking to get the United States to recognize them as citizens for the sole purpose of compelling Germany to recuse them from military service. The Secretary of State deemed that as they were not applying to come to the United States to live as citizens, but only seeking to renege on the obligations of their German citizenship, that granting them passports would demean the value and actual meaning of American citizenship.
You're limiting it to only Germany, read the link I gave, it covers a very large portion of the globe, to include Latin America. I only gave Ludwig Hansding simply because the US Govt brought him up in the court briefs of WKA. Look to the Austrian (Francois Heinrich) who was held to be born in the US to parents temporarily sojourning here, yet was determined to have been born "not subject to US jurisdiction" but to "subjects of a foreign power".
I object to this proposed law. I think, if it is not already so, that every child born on US land, or land controlled by the US, should automatically become an US citizen. In addition any child born of a female US citizen anywhere in the world should also be automatically become a US citizen.
A child has not choice as to where it is born or the nationality of its mother. Therefore it should be a citizen as stated above.
I do not fear “anchor babies” as they are just like any other child.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And yet you can't even give me the name of one documented Black Citizen, you can only give a name of one Freeman, Quock. Again, equating them to citizens is not making them citizens, freemen did not equate to citizen no matter how much you wish it to be, or how much Curtis assumed the same.
I object to this proposal
